Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@lancia.garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Once Saved Always Saved Message-ID: Date: 3 Dec 89 17:48:24 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 30 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >The difference between your two robbers is that one of them is repentant. If >this is truly the case, he will be saved. The unrepentent bank robber faces >the same fate as the unrepentant gossip, the unrepentant liar, and even the >unrepentant pretty-good-guy and the unrepentant everyone-thinks-he's-a-saint. I agree. You don't hold the model of salvation that my comments were addressed to; you say "he will be saved". I was addressing some thoughts to the idea that someone can be "saved" right here and now, permanently. The whole point was, if someone is supposed to be "saved", and do something spectacularly evil, how am I to square it? If a "saved" person is not distinguishable from an "unsaved" by their works, what *are* they distinguished by? >Human beings are sinful. Period. By the Grace of God through Jesus Christ, >we have the unbelievable opportunity to commune forever with God anyway, by >having our sins erased at the Cross. All of them. Now, and later. Because >there will be more of them, you can bet on it. And no one of them is any more >offensive in the eyes of God than any other. (See previous posting on this). Logically, there's no particular reason to punish one crime with death and another with a fine, if they're morally all equivalent. Why not make murder legally equivalent to jaywalking? After all, you're saying that they're the same in the eyes of God. The disproof from Scripture is simple enough: He who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.